• Support PF! Buy your school textbooks, materials and every day products Here!

Non-inertial Frames of Reference

  • #1
226
8

Homework Statement


You are in a car accelerating forwards. There is a baseball at your feet. Draw two FBDs showing the the ball's motion from the frame of reference of the car and the frame of reference of the sidewalk. Which frame of reference is non-inertial? In which frame do you observe the fictitious force?

Homework Equations


-

The Attempt at a Solution


I don't know what to draw for the FBDs, but I'm confused because I think that both frames are non-inertial and there is a fictitious force in both frames since there is no external force acting on the ball, yet it accellerates backwards from the car and sidewalk's point of view. However, the wording of the question implies that only one frame is non-inertial and only one frame has a fictitious force.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
13,451
5,964

Homework Statement


You are in a car accelerating forwards. There is a baseball at your feet. Draw two FBDs showing the the ball's motion from the frame of reference of the car and the frame of reference of the sidewalk. Which frame of reference is non-inertial? In which frame do you observe the fictitious force?

Homework Equations


-

The Attempt at a Solution


I don't know what to draw for the FBDs, but I'm confused because I think that both frames are non-inertial and there is a fictitious force in both frames since there is no external force acting on the ball, yet it accellerates backwards from the car and sidewalk's point of view. However, the wording of the question implies that only one frame is non-inertial and only one frame has a fictitious force.
Why would the sidewalk frame be non-inertial?
 
  • #3
226
8
Why would the sidewalk frame be non-inertial?
The ball is moving backwards, but no external force is acting on it?
 
  • #4
963
213
I don't know what to draw for the FBDs, but I'm confused because I think that both frames are non-inertial and there is a fictitious force in both frames since there is no external force acting on the ball, yet it accellerates backwards from the car and sidewalk's point of view. However, the wording of the question implies that only one frame is non-inertial and only one frame has a fictitious force.
its a homework problem so you must submit a template of your attempts-so that you can proceed further.
you might have learn't about inertia and inertial frames ,so go to text book and see how free body diagrams are drawn.
 
  • #5
226
8
its a homework problem so you must submit a template of your attempts-so that you can proceed further.
you might have learn't about inertia and inertial frames ,so go to text book and see how free body diagrams are drawn.
I know how to draw free body diagrams, but I don't think the ball would have any forces acting on it besides gravity and normal and friction- those are the only forces I would draw.
 
  • #6
963
213
you have two observers
1. in the car
2. on the sidewalk

so two sets of FBD will be there . now which one is non-inertial?






/
 
  • #7
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
13,451
5,964
The ball is moving backwards, but no external force is acting on it?
Do you think a person on the sidewalk would see the ball moving backwards?
 
  • #8
226
8
Do you think a person on the sidewalk would see the ball moving backwards?
Ok, it would be moving forwards from their point of view, but I still don't know which force causes it to move forwards other than just the car's acceleration/
 
  • #9
226
8
you have two observers
1. in the car
2. on the sidewalk

so two sets of FBD will be there . now which one is non-inertial?

I'm not sure. I don't think there's an external force acting on the ball, so wouldn't both be non-inertial?





/
 
  • #10
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
13,451
5,964
Ok, it would be moving forwards from their point of view, but I still don't know which force causes it to move forwards other than just the car's acceleration/
You need to sort two things out in your mind. First: what is a non-inertial reference frame?

The answer to that is essentially a reference frame that is (itself) accelerating. The sidewalk will never be non-inertial unless something very strange happens. The car will vary between an inertial and non-inertial reference frame depending on whether it's accelerating or not.

One of the features of a non-inertial reference frame (e.g. an accelerating car) is that other things (buildings, people, sidewalks) appear to accelerate (to you from inside your car) without any real forces on them.

The second question is what happens to the ball when the car accelerates? Personally, I don't like these questions, because it's not at all clear what will happen to the ball. There is friction on the floor, there are things to bump into and the ball can't go very far before it is knocked forward by something.

But, ideally, the ball stays precisely where it was (unmoved by the car's accleration) until ... it hits something. So what you are being told theorectically will happen is clearly not what happens in reality. The baseball may very well just move with the car - assuming you don't accelerate too fast and it finds a bit of something on the floor to rest against!
 
  • #11
226
8
You need to sort two things out in your mind. First: what is a non-inertial reference frame?

The answer to that is essentially a reference frame that is (itself) accelerating. The sidewalk will never be non-inertial unless something very strange happens. The car will vary between an inertial and non-inertial reference frame depending on whether it's accelerating or not.

One of the features of a non-inertial reference frame (e.g. an accelerating car) is that other things (buildings, people, sidewalks) appear to accelerate (to you from inside your car) without any real forces on them.

The second question is what happens to the ball when the car accelerates? Personally, I don't like these questions, because it's not at all clear what will happen to the ball. There is friction on the floor, there are things to bump into and the ball can't go very far before it is knocked forward by something.

But, ideally, the ball stays precisely where it was (unmoved by the car's accleration) until ... it hits something. So what you are being told theorectically will happen is clearly not what happens in reality. The baseball may very well just move with the car - assuming you don't accelerate too fast and it finds a bit of something on the floor to rest against!
How would the ball stay where it was? Wouldn't it move backwards relative to the car?
 
  • #12
963
213
'm not sure. I don't think there's an external force acting on the ball, so wouldn't both be non-inertial?

non inertial frames have accelerations therefore a fictitious force operate in those frames so one can expect the ball in the car to move opposite to the car movement /acceleration .just like you are in a lift going up with acceleration a and you feel heavier /or if you are standing on a scale the wt shown is m.(g+a) . so it acts opposite to the frame's acceleration. and equal to the magnitude of frame acceleration.
 
  • #13
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
13,451
5,964
How would the ball stay where it was? Wouldn't it move backwards relative to the car?
Not if it's stuck on a bit of carpet! Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't. I don't know whether you drive, but sometimes things do move about what you accelerate and sometimes they don't.

Also, the ball can only move a few inches perhaps, which is negligible compared to the motion of the car.

I'm just saying that if you did an experiment, it may not match the simplistic theory.
 
  • #14
226
8
Not if it's stuck on a bit of carpet! Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't. I don't know whether you drive, but sometimes things do move about what you accelerate and sometimes they don't.

Also, the ball can only move a few inches perhaps, which is negligible compared to the motion of the car.

I'm just saying that if you did an experiment, it may not match the simplistic theory.
The whole lesson we did in class was based on the idea that if you have an object inside an accelerating vehicle, it'll move opposite the direction of acceleration
 
  • #15
226
8
'm not sure. I don't think there's an external force acting on the ball, so wouldn't both be non-inertial?

non inertial frames have accelerations therefore a fictitious force operate in those frames so one can expect the ball in the car to move opposite to the car movement /acceleration .just like you are in a lift going up with acceleration a and you feel heavier /or if you are standing on a scale the wt shown is m.(g+a) . so it acts opposite to the frame's acceleration. and equal to the magnitude of frame acceleration.
So the non-inertial frame is from the car's point of view, but is there still a fictitious force from the sidewalk's point of view
 
  • #16
jbriggs444
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2019 Award
8,776
3,534
The whole lesson we did in class was based on the idea that if you have an object inside an accelerating vehicle, it'll move opposite the direction of acceleration
If that is what you took away from the experiment, it was an incorrect conclusion. Objects inside an accelerating vehicle seem to move opposite the direction of acceleration only when measured against the accelerating vehicle.
 
  • #17
226
8
If that is what you took away from the experiment, it was an incorrect conclusion. Objects inside an accelerating vehicle move opposite the direction of acceleration only when measured against the accelerating vehicle.
So relative to the accelerating vehicle, the object moves in the opposite direction?
 
  • #18
jbriggs444
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2019 Award
8,776
3,534
So relative to the accelerating vehicle, the object moves in the opposite direction?
Yes.
 
  • #19
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
13,451
5,964
The whole lesson we did in class was based on the idea that if you have an object inside an accelerating vehicle, it'll move opposite the direction of acceleration
What about the driver? That used to happen on the Wacky Races (you're probably too young to remember that cartoon). The car would shoot off and the driver and the steering wheel would be left at the starting gate!

What I'm saying is that's a bad example, because all sorts of practical aspects complicate the matter. Do an experiment next time you're in a car.

A better example is when a car crashes: then anything that isn't strapped down (including passengers) goes flying.
 
  • #21
226
8
What about the driver? That used to happen on the Wacky Races (you're probably too young to remember that cartoon). The car would shoot off and the driver and the steering wheel would be left at the starting gate!

What I'm saying is that's a bad example, because all sorts of practical aspects complicate the matter. Do an experiment next time you're in a car.

A better example is when a car crashes: then anything that isn't strapped down (including passengers) goes flying.
The experiment we did in class had a ball inside a dynamics cart. It wasn't strapped down, so when the cart accelerated forwards, the ball accelerated backwards even though no external forces acted on it
 
  • #22
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
13,451
5,964
The experiment we did in class had a ball inside a dynamics cart. It wasn't strapped down, so when the cart accelerated forwards, the ball accelerated backwards even though no external forces acted on it
Okay. Sorry if I confused the issue.
 
  • #23
226
8
Okay. Sorry if I confused the issue.
I'm still not sure how to solve this problem. I think the car's frame is non-inertial since it's an accelerating frame and the sidewalk's frame is not. But, there's no force that explains the motion of the ball in either frame
 
  • #24
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
13,451
5,964
I'm still not sure how to solve this problem. I think the car's frame is non-inertial since it's an accelerating frame and the sidewalk's frame is not. But, there's no force that explains the motion of the ball in either frame
If I said the ball doesn't accelerate backwards would you believe me?
 
  • #25
226
8
If I said the ball doesn't accelerate backwards would you believe me?
Why wouldn't it?
 

Related Threads on Non-inertial Frames of Reference

Replies
3
Views
53K
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
890
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
9K
Replies
3
Views
851
Replies
4
Views
671
Replies
7
Views
288
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
823
Top